Minutes:
Item A
Application DC/19/04105
Proposal Planning Application Outline Planning Application (some matters reserved – site access to be considered) - Erection of up to 150 dwellings, use of land for community facilities, public open space, landscaping, a sustainable drainage system (SuDS), and vehicular access point from Brantham Hill (following demolition of existing bungalow and outbuildings).
Site Location Brantham – Land West of Brantham Hill, CO11 1ST
Applicant Gladman Developments Ltd.
79.1 The Area Planning Manager updated Members on receipt of a letter from Place Services included in the tabled papers.
79.2 The Case officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, and the officer recommendation of refusal as detailed in the report.
79.3 Members considered the representation from Councillor Alastair McCraw, the Ward Member of Brantham.
79.4 Members debated the application on the issues including the number of objections to the application, the lack of regard for planning policy and conflict with development plan CS3, boundary lines between the site and the AONB, the change of the landscape if the site was Developed, the Five-year Housing Land Supply in relation to the application and the requirement of the application to demonstrate a need for the development of the site.
79.5 Members continued to discuss the Five-Year Housing Land Supply and the weight it carried for the application. The Planning Lawyer advised that this had to be approached with caution and that the Committee should follow the NPPF.
79.6 Councillor Adrian Osborne proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer’s recommendation and Councillor Stephen Plumb seconded the motion.
79.7 RESOLVED
That the planning application be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The circumstances of the application and the proposed development are not exceptional and are without a proven justifiable need, contrary to policy CS2. The application fails to adequately demonstrate how the proposal responds to a locally identified housing need, contrary to policy CS11 and paragraph 77 of the NPPF, which requires development in rural areas to be responsive to local circumstances and reflect local needs.
2. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, siting and location, would cause significant harm to the open countryside (considered to be a valued landscape) and the way that it is experienced within the immediate setting of an area of outstanding natural beauty and would fail to respect the local context and character, and the rural setting, of Brantham and its well-defined spatial grain, contrary to policies CS11, CS14 and CS15 of the development plan and paragraphs 98, 127, and 170 of the NPPF.
3. It is considered that insufficient information has been submitted to enable the local planning authority to confirm that the potential impacts of the proposed development on the local highway network would not be severe, in the terms set out at paragraph 109 of the NPPF, or the cumulative impacts satisfactory in accordance with policy CS11, and this includes identifying appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes (contrary to those requirements, policy CS15, and paragraph 108 of the NPPF). In the absence of adequate information to accurately forecast potential impact, it is not considered possible to design and deliver suitable highways/transport mitigation nor, consequently, to confirm that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of highway effects. Furthermore, the application does not demonstrate that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users, contrary to paragraphs 108 and 109 of the NPPF.
4. The proposed development risks harm to heritage assets in terms of archaeological interest, with particular regard to the risk that significant finds may be identified that would require preservation in situ, by reason of insufficient information being submitted to demonstrate that the archaeological impacts of the development have been appropriately assessed, considered and mitigated. As such the proposal is contrary to policies CS11 and CS15 of the development plan and paragraph 189 of the NPPF.
5. The application fails to adequately demonstrate that the development would not pose an adverse impact in relation to surface water run-off and incorporate sustainable drainage measures to accommodate the expected drainage impacts, contrary to policies CS11 and CS15 of the development plan and paragraphs 163 and 165 of the NPPF.
6. The proposal fails to adequately demonstrate that the development would not have an adverse impact on protected and/or priority species, contrary to policies CS11 and CS15 of the development plan and paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF.
The development conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan.
1. In the event that an appeal against the refusal of planning permission is received, delegate authority to the Chief Planning Officer to defend that appeal for the reasons set out under (1) above, being amended and/or varied as may be required.
Supporting documents: